Enzor v. Holmes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Enzor v. Holmes

85 S.E. 348, 16 Ga. App. 375, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 632

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1915

Docket6196

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 348 (Enzor v. Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Enzor v. Holmes, 85 S.E. 348, 16 Ga. App. 375, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

It is conceded by counsel for tbe plaintiff in error that the only question involved in the determination of the ease sub judice is: Was the plaintiff in error, under the facts and circumstances, a tenant of defendants in error, or was he a purchaser? In other words: Did the relation of landlord and tenant exist, or did the relation of vendor and vendee exist between the parties? Other grounds upon which the judgment rendered in the municipal court might be erroneous must therefore be treated as abandoned. And since there was ample evidence to authorize a finding that the actual relation between the parties was that of landlord and tenant (though the evidence upon that subject was in conflict), it can not be said that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, or that the appellate division of the municipal court erred in sustaining that finding.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Russell, C. J.

It is conceded by counsel for tbe plaintiff in error that the only question involved in the determination of the ease sub judice is: Was the plaintiff in error, under the facts and circumstances, a tenant of defendants in error, or was he a purchaser? In other words: Did the relation of landlord and tenant exist, or did the relation of vendor and vendee exist between the parties? Other grounds upon which the judgment rendered in the municipal court might be erroneous must therefore be treated as abandoned. And since there was ample evidence to authorize a finding that the actual relation between the parties was that of landlord and tenant (though the evidence upon that subject was in conflict), it can not be said that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, or that the appellate division of the municipal court erred in sustaining that finding.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 348, 16 Ga. App. 375, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enzor-v-holmes-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack